Pate 3                                                            March 31, 1972


           (line 1, page 8) and the requirement that, 'The Hearing Officer
           shall neither sit in on nor take part in the Board's deliberations
           of the issue of innocence or guilt nor quantrum of punishment"
           (line 6, page 8). Secondly, there is a conflict between the J-Board
           Hearing Officer's responsibility to "decide and rule . . . . upon
           all procedural questions arising under this Code" (line 3, page 8),
           on the one hand, and, on the other, his proposed responsibility to
           "be available to advise upon procedural questions arising under
           this Code" (line 8, page 8 of proposed addition).

           Although the actual wording of 1. 436a as revised differs from
           l.422a, the basic issues are identical.


   2. 22  (Requiring "consultation with the President of the affected Residence
          Hall Government" in appointing the resident advisor of each housing
          unit).

          BOARD ACTION RECOMMENDED: That this proposal not be
          adopted.

          RATIONALE: In actuality, the resident advisors are the head
          residents, University employees selected by the Dean of Students.
          The effect of this proposed revision would be to confound the
          normal processes of appointment of residence hall staff members
          and complicate the definition of their administrative responsibilities.
          I do not believe such a provision belongs in a Code of Student Con-
          duct.

          Further, this proposal is fundamentally unworkable because a
          majority of our residence halls (the freshman halls) have no
          president until several weeks following the beginning of the fall
          term.


   3. 31  (Adding the Residence Halls Judicial System and the counseling
          process to the University Judicial System with respect to applica-
          bility of the following specified rights of the accused).

          BOARD ACTION RECOMMENDED: That Section 3. 31 be retained
          in its original form and that the proposed revision be rejected.